I think I understand. For reasons of fairness, rules should be made to ensure people have an equal chance at winning.
I don't think so, unless you're talking about just having a lottery.
Rules should be made so the event is a test of the thing we are trying to test. Which might be wrestling skill or throwing accuracy, or something else.
Intervention should be made to prevent accidents of nature from creating unfair advantage that would prevent whole classes of people from achieving success.
When those accidents of nature are unrelated to whatever it is were are interested in testing.
A certain number of contests should only be open to classes of people so they have the opportunity to win one, even if the winners are not the best in the overall field.
Should? I think it's really just a matter of some people wanting to have a competition between themselves to see which person within that class will win. Should they do so? Only if they want to. But if someone from outside of that class jumps in and decides to compete that seems like a dick move to me.
The competitions are too important to many people to leave unregulated and at the mercy of chance and the unfeeling happenstance of nature. Is that right?
No, it's fine to have unregulated competitions. Some people want to have more regulated ones because they are interested in the results, both as competitors and as an audience. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
In BJJ we have weight classes and also an absolute division where all athletes compete. We also have submission only competitions in which a match doesn't end until someone taps, as opposed to most competitions which include time limits and points. We have age categories, but all ages are free to join the adult division (18 and up I think). No one has any problems with the less regulated categories, but that doesn't suggest that there's something wrong with having those other divisions as well, and I certainly would have a problem if I was in a BJJ competition and my opponent started throwing punches at my face. That would break the rules of the competition.
The issue isn't that we need to have separate men's and women's competitions. The issue is that when a competition is specifically for women and men compete they are breaking the pre-established rules of that competition. Or the competition itself is a lie, like an event that claims to be a BJJ competition but allows striking. Whatever can be determined from the outcome, it's not who has the best jiu jitsu.
Whether or not women
should have separate competitions is separate from whether or not men should compete in those competitions if they have them.
I'm just wondering why those precepts should apply to sporting events but not to politics or the economy. Sports should be regulated heavily but not businesses. Women should make up a certain number of bicycle race championships but not political office or CEOs. Fairness demands compensating for nature in racing but affirmative action is unjust. Bicycle racing is important but everything else can be left to chance and market forces. Fairness is a principle for games but nothing else.
What does this have to do with this thread? Seems completely unrelated to anything anyone has said or any issue in this thread. People value fairness in every aspect of life, not just sports.
